Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have read through some of the Hermes threads
    • Should I send it to any Lloyds address or there's specific one?  Thanks again.  It means a lot knowing there's someone who is willing to help.  I appreciate it
    • I agree, guys.   Here's an article about NHS test and trace rolling out saliva tests to local public health departments. It doesn't seem to have been thought through and I didn't notice anything in the article about some of the £12bn being passed on to local authorities to help them run this.   https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/28/10-of-englands-population-could-be-tested-for-covid-19-every-week   'Some local public health directors have dismissed the idea already. One said he would refuse to take part because the tests were “short on scientific backing” and his stretched staff lacked the capacity to deliver at such scale. Another said the lack of any proposed support to track people’s close contacts if they tested positive rendered it pointless.'
    • The legal letter was sent online and it is above  I will repost below Hermes Capitol House 1 Capitol Close Moriey LEEDS LS270WH Particulars 0f Claim xxxxxxx 27/10/2020 I sent a £200 extremely well packaged laptop with Hermes and took up the option of the extra cost to get the £200 compensation and insurance.   For the past 10 weeks i was told that my parcel had been lost but then 2 weeks ago I was told by a manager by the name of Junaid that my laptop had been disposed off without my prior knowledge, the parcel was disposed of as it was "damaged beyond repair" after 1 hours travel.   I was told by many customer service agents and a manager that I would receive a refund. I have an audio recording of the manager assuring me I would get my money back and then he (Junaid) Informed me that the head of the claims department had changed his mind as the laptop was damaged through no fault of my own.   I am claiming for £220 plus £25 legal costs. I also sent a letter of deadlock over 2 weeks ago and I did not receive a response despite the letter being signed for.   Details of claim  amount - £220.00 court fee £25.00 total £245.00
    • Can we see a copy of the so-called deadlock letter please. I understand that you at least kept a copy of that. also I suggest that you take a bit of time and start reading on this forum about the steps needed to take a small claim in the county court.   have you read through some of the hermès threads on this forum so that you understand the issues and the basis of your case and that you have started to formulate your arguments?    
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Locked in car park


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3332 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi TLD, I like your assessment of the situation. Things are certainly moving along nicely now aren't they?

 

Georges credibility as a witness is certainly already wide open to contest and such a simple matter as this will not help his case one jot. Why he should sign a statement of truth to the effect that the current barrier is a BFT when it quite clearly has RIB stamped on it is far beyond my comprehension, the fact that the college themselves in a Freedom of Information Act response contradict him and we contradict him further with expert witness and the manufacturers witness statement and that this was known to him at the time of making this statement leaves me concerned for the mans sanity.

 

More good news on this subject regarding George's little problem is that we've uncovered further cast iron proof as to the make of the replaced barrier. (I'll email you the juicy details, TLD;))

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi TLD, I like your assessment of the situation. Things are certainly moving along nicely now aren't they?

 

 

 

More good news on this subject regarding George's little problem is that we've uncovered further cast iron proof as to the make of the replaced barrier. (I'll email you the juicy details, TLD;))

 

Well one things for certain and that is that Fred will not be footing a five figure legal costs bill which means this case has deteriorated from being a simple small claims hearing for £3,500 to what is actually now nothing more than a behind the scenes wrangle over the circa £15,000 (new estimate) legal fees incurred by Lyons Davidson.

 

By using George as a stooge to sign these statements LD can then argue that any failure to win is the fault of PCAD and that the college are liable for the costs.

 

Bizarrely the person best placed to help the college in any litigation over liability to Lyons Davidsons excessive fees is...... fred.

 

I wonder if he might feel swayed to proffer evidence which might lead PCAD to conclude that they were not at all times 'best advised' and that LD might actually be culpable for the biggest mistake of the entire proceedings? Not neccesarily out of benevolence you understand, more out of a sense of spite towards Lyons Davidson and the shocking behaviour they have displayed towards him.

 

(Pretty sure Fred could supply the PCAD solicitors with a list of key pointers which would give them some serious ammunition in the event of a fight over the legal fees, pointers which might cause LD acute problems in the event of any such contest).:rolleyes:

 

As an example any opportunity the college ever had to settle this matter out of court with a part 36 offer was never realistically possible due to the costs involved and claimed by Lyons Davidson exceeding the amount of the part 36 offer itself by approximately 600% :eek::eek:

 

Of course LD also failed to take into account the counterclaim in this part 36 offer as per the CPR requirements which effectively nullifies the legality of it anyway. So they made a pigs breakfast of it and put the defendant in a position whereby he could afford to go to the hearing, lose and still be 10 grand better off than accepting the part 36 offer........

 

I'd be inclined to say that PCAD have a cause of action here against their solicitors, wouldn't take me long to type up a list.:-D

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've got a very strong point there, TLD and of course the prospect of Fred losing is now highly unlikely due to all the cast iron evidence we have,and not to mention the police involvement now underway.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Win lose or draw this is a small claims hearing and thus Fred was never in danger of exposure to a five figure adverse costs award. Quite why Lyons Davidson never actually made Plymouth College of Art aware of the costs liability situation is open to interpretation though I think when we look at the facts we'd all arrive at the same conclusion.

 

Would you lay out ten thousand pounds in the hope at best you recover five thousand pounds? I wouldn't and I can't think of any right minded person who would yet this is basically the deal that was on offer to PCAD from the off. It certainly wouldn't have suited Lyons Davidsons purposes if the college had known that nearly all legal costs are unrecoverable in the small claims court, again PCAD might feel they have been misled by their representatives but that's between them and LD.:-D

 

I notice the mysterious 'first claimant' in use again on the latest paperwork, I guess that when it does all go horribly wrong for PCAD that at least they will find some solace in the fact that there is ultimately a 'second claimant' with whom they can expect to share the costs and any counterclaim so it's not all bad news for them.:-D:-D

 

And why on earth even if guilty of everything would Fred possibly agree to pay 50% of the claim plus £10,500 costs under the part 36 offer when he might just as well go to Court and have a judgment against him of 100% of the claim plus negligble costs.

 

As a point of reference it's worth noting that in front of many judges any hope the claimant had of realistically claiming costs and interest went out the window as far back as when Mark responded to the CPR 18 request along the lines of 'we will not provide you with anything which might help your defence'. This does after all undermine the entire overriding principles of disclosure and when applied to this particular case it is this inordinate stubborness in refusing to disclose upon formal request which has consumed so much Court time by virtue of a number of applications and hearings which would otherwise have been wholly uneccesary.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lyons Davidson have made a mistake that has become increasingly common among solicitors and corporations alike in the last few years, as the fantastic website shows.

 

They have forgotten we are in the Information Age. Advice, help, tips and information are easily accessible to anyone. Cases and actions and so on which were once purely in the province of your local Solicitor, because he was the only chap with any clue, all the little tricks and tips they made use of in court are now available to us, the general public.

 

15 years ago, the scheme would have worked perfectly, and poor Fred would have paid up several grand. But now, it only took a few finger strokes on a keyboard, and a large and respected legal firm is being led a merry dance.

 

I think one of the biggest boons of the Information Age, of being able to thoroughly research your rights, of precedents, of all sorts of things, means that the Mystique and the Fear has gone.

 

Once upon a time people just didnt dare mess with a legal representative, they took it as read, that even if right, that legal chap would likely win, because its his job, now the curtains have been opened, and the Consumer wins.

 

I myself had a dance with a solicitor who thought the that that he was a solicitor with letters after his name would intimidate me into just paying him up an imagined debt to himself I did not own, displaying that I was not completely stupid, and I was able to fight my corner by understand my rights etc soon had him back down. (it was a service he provided my parents with, they paid for, but then he decided he wanted more, and tried to pounce on ME for that extra because he once telephoned me and asked if he could use my name as part of the service my parents were paying for)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if right at the start,Lyons Davidson handed this case to a junior or trainee solicitor, and let them get on with it thinking it was just a routine recovery of a debt.

Would explain the awful mess they are now in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they did and yes it does Electron99.

 

Recently the Paralegal who handled this case from its inception has been replaced by Indecipherable Squiggle who we believe to be a real solicitor.

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes they did and yes it does Electron99.

 

Recently the Paralegal who handled this case from its inception has been replaced by Indecipherable Squiggle who we believe to be a real solicitor.

 

I don't think even Chuck Norris and Batman can get them out of this one though!! :D

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just to pick up on the point raised by 2 Grumpy in post 2071 above, please bear in mind that the written down value (the accounting value) is unlikely to bear much relation to it's actual value at that point in time. It is as 2Grumpy states an accounting value based on the original cost of the equipment and its estimated useful life. It would only be reduced in value more (due to poor condition) if it was worth materially less than the value it was held at in the Colleges books. Materially here refers to the accounting concept of "materiality" - put very simplistically, providing the value that it is held at (combined with other problems found during the accounts) don't mean that the accounts are rendered pretty much meaningless then the auditors are unlikely to ask for an adjustment to be made to the barriers value. In all honesty, for an amount of just a few thousand pounds, it may have been totally disregarded as not material by the auditors.

 

I might have provided too much information here when I was explaining the difference between the asset register, asset valuation (that is often held with the register) and the audit.

 

Hopefully the register will hold all of the details & the audit might give the condition.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's very helpful, thanks Welshmam, We have been informed by Lyons Davidson that no documents have been kept with regard to the old barrier and that's after only 3 years, so either someone is being economical with the truth or they're breaking rules.

 

The mind boggles at the thought that they would have disposed of documentation for the barrier replacement when they were minded to recover the cost from Fred?

 

It's sort of like eating your receipt for a microwave you've just bought even though you've decided to return it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bizarrely the person best placed to help the college in any litigation over liability to Lyons Davidsons excessive fees is...... fred.

 

I wonder if he might feel swayed to proffer evidence which might lead PCAD to conclude that they were not at all times 'best advised' and that LD might actually be culpable for the biggest mistake of the entire proceedings? Not neccesarily out of benevolence you understand, more out of a sense of spite towards Lyons Davidson and the shocking behaviour they have displayed towards him.

 

(Pretty sure Fred could supply the PCAD solicitors with a list of key pointers which would give them some serious ammunition in the event of a fight over the legal fees, pointers which might cause LD acute problems in the event of any such contest).:rolleyes:

 

You'd think it worth the college's while taking Fred out to a truly slap-up meal while they discussed any potential help that Fred might be able to proffer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont understand why they dont offer fair compensation and apologise profusely for someone trying to stitch him up, then at least minimising the costs for themselves. Anyone with any sense can see they are snookered by their own stupidity and greed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The mind boggles at the thought that they would have disposed of documentation for the barrier replacement when they were minded to recover the cost from Fred?

 

It's sort of like eating your receipt for a microwave you've just bought even though you've decided to return it.

 

A good analogy.The only ther alternative I can see is that it looks like the action of a guilty person.

You'd think it worth the college's while taking Fred out to a truly slap-up meal while they discussed any potential help that Fred might be able to proffer.

Perhaps we should suggest that to them.:cool:;)

 

I dont understand why they dont offer fair compensation and apologise profusely for someone trying to stitch him up, then at least minimising the costs for themselves. Anyone with any sense can see they are snookered by their own stupidity and greed.

I agree with you rusty24 Their actions just seem to get dafter as time goes on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I might have provided too much information here when I was explaining the difference between the asset register, asset valuation (that is often held with the register) and the audit.

 

Hopefully the register will hold all of the details & the audit might give the condition.

Thanks 2Grumpy and Stagparty, your information has been really helpful.

The power of a forum like this is phenomenal. So much expertise, information, valuable support and encouragement have transformed what was a forlorn hope and a belief in his innocence on Fred's part into this formidable case and along the way is providing entertainment for encouragement for others. Well done everybody.You're all stars!:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patma have the Police indicated they will be investigating this as there would appear to be a clear case of fraud? Wouldn't this be terrible if it were turned on it's head for some 'poor soul' at the college or LD? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma have the Police indicated they will be investigating this as there would appear to be a clear case of fraud? Wouldn't this be terrible if it were turned on it's head for some 'poor soul' at the college or LD? ;)

Watch this space BSC. There'll be news about that coming along.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont understand why they dont offer fair compensation and apologise profusely for someone trying to stitch him up, then at least minimising the costs for themselves. Anyone with any sense can see they are snookered by their own stupidity and greed.

 

Institutions don't have stupidity or greed, just the people running / employed by them.

 

Perhaps there is someone at the college that will get the searchlight turned on him when this goes pear shaped and he is doing everything he can to stay in his job just a little bit longer.

 

That being the case, it's a shame that person doesn't read this forum & realise what his best course of action would be & change direction!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Patma have the Police indicated they will be investigating this as there would appear to be a clear case of fraud? Wouldn't this be terrible if it were turned on it's head for some 'poor soul' at the college or LD? ;)

 

I've just sent you a pm, TLD with an update regarding what BSC was asking about amongst other matters.;)

 

Oooo errrr!!:eek::eek:

 

Have just seen the message. Those are very serious suggestions for such a senior member of Devon and Cornwall Constabulary to make, to recommend such a course of action he must have some grave suspicions about the conduct of certain parties to this action. And knowing what evidence they have had access to who could blame them?

I'd have to say it looks like certain people are out of time now with respect to avoiding any possible criminal investigation. They had their chance to extricate themselves but blew it spectacularly by digging themselves in even deeper. 'X' has done himself no favours whatsoever by signing that latest statement of truth either, that 'cast iron' proof you have could just as easily be deemed 'solid gold' and there can be no excuses or mitigation.

They supplied false evidence, this was queried directly with them by Fred, they chose to ignore Freds advice and offer and re-presented the false information, Fred again contested the authenticity this time through a formal approach to the Court manager as a breach of CPR, they were ordered to re-present the information and still chose to make that particular claim. (Amongst several other just as hotly disputed claims:eek:) All this in the full knowledge that Fred held comprehensive evidence to disprove this claim such evidence originating from the college themselves, he even had the common decency to point out the clerical error made by 'M' which in the very least offered them a chance to withdraw the false claim under the guise of an 'admin error' but beligerently they continued to ignore the blindingly obvious and got 'X' to sign a statement of truth against the corrupted version caused by the Lyons Davidson error in reading the FOI response.

There can be no excuses now, this has to go down as a blatant attempt to mislead the Court, the witness is in trouble and since he appears to be their only witness and pretty well all their documentation originates from him you have to surmise that they are now resting their case entirely upon a caution which never existed and witness statements from a witness who will be deemed 'unreliable' (at the very best) at the preceeding applications hearing.

This is the worst piece of legal work I have ever experienced.:evil: The client has been hung out to dry in the Civil Court and now it's more than likely in the criminal Court too.

No wonder Lyons Davidson chose to get 'X' to sign that latest statement which is simply a reiteration of an earlier statement made by Lyons Davidson themselves. There was no checking involved, a simple walk outside might have saved 'X' much angst but LD simply appear to be more concerned now with attributing culpability on to the college and poor old 'X' is in so deep that he either just cannot see this or even if he can see it is unable to do anything to stop it.

 

This is going to get seriously nasty now, all those possible offences the police mention carry a tarriff which include custodial sentences (7-14 years):eek:, and a criminal conviction whatever the punishment would almost certainly preclude one from working in education, health, finance or law.

At the moment the other offences which Fred has made representation about to the Court remain unproven civil offences, of course the status of these might change the instant they enter Court and attempt to make use of the contested statements and 'evidence'.

 

The claimant (by which we all know I really mean 'X' now) is being led by the real claimant (Royal & Sun Alliance) and their (R & SA's) solicitors Lyons Davidson. R & SA have made themselves remote fom any fallout by pursuing this claim via a Lien on any proceeds rather than a true subrogation of the insureds rights (clever and a good 'selling point' for the practice for LD) and Lyons Davidsons have made a large number of grave errors which I think we all know they will attempt to attribute to the claimant ('X').

 

I think it's truly time for Fred to throw a bag full of rather large spanners into the machinery that is Lyons Davidsons representation in this matter, to do so would be doing Plymouth college of Art a bigger favour than they might actually ever realise but it's probably far too late to save 'X' and other involved parties now.8-)8-)

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to admit that I have harboured at least one hypothesis that this whole affair was down to the initial greed / incompetence of one individual, and that everything else has been as a consequence of that, with dissembling, covering up and outright deceit being the order of the day.

 

That it has gone on so long, however, astounds me. I do get the feeling that someone is so far out of their depth, they have completely lost sight of the consequences of their continued actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TLD update for you:D Check your inbox

 

Have just seen it thanks Patma.

:eek:

I am shocked!!!! Deeply shocked but if being honest not surprised in the slightest.

 

The choice of words is utterly remarkable, and with a Council approved contractor going into liquidation literally within hours of a protracted dialogue by 'phone and fax you might feel qualified to hazard a guess at where they are going with such a statement. This would explain quite a lot of otherwise wholly irrational behaviour being exhibited by certain people.

 

I've thought for a long time we were dealing with a bunch of cocks but it appears they're not cocks just chickens and it sounds like they've just come home to roost!!!

You have the right to food money.

If you don't mind a little investigation, humiliation, and if you cross your fingers rehabilitation..............

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have just seen it thanks Patma.

:eek:

I am shocked!!!! Deeply shocked but if being honest not surprised in the slightest.

 

The choice of words is utterly remarkable, and with a Council approved contractor going into liquidation literally within hours of a protracted dialogue by 'phone and fax you might feel qualified to hazard a guess at where they are going with such a statement. This would explain quite a lot of otherwise wholly irrational behaviour being exhibited by certain people.

 

I've thought for a long time we were dealing with a bunch of cocks but it appears they're not cocks just chickens and it sounds like they've just come home to roost!!!

Couldn't agree more, TLD. It's getting more and more interesting by the day. Whatever next I wonder? I would think the Principal and governors of Plymouth College of Art would be horrified at what their college has got involved with.

I've just sent you another message btw.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3332 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...